This was on Stuff, I thought, wow, what have we done, he is ranting again, post election. But, he wasn't ranting, it wasn't a tirade, and NZ were just words in the tweets. Over over dramatisation, Stuff

While I agree that some parallels can be drawn with early-mid 1930s Hitler, it most certainly doesn't automatically follow that Trump will proceed down a similar path going forward. In fact I think it is incredibly unlikely.

The ideology and times and circumstances are different, but his methodology is identical.

Most of the world were in denial about Hitler's ambitions.

The budget for the US military machine is more than China, Russia, UK, and Germany combined.

I see there are similarities. But, IMHO, he is just a figurehead now. Imagine a group of people (GOP), and all holding him as they move forward, this way Donald. Yes, you can say this, but don't say that. All Presidents have advisors, in this case the advisors will pretty much carry out everything. He has toned down a lot, he has admitted he hasn't done this before, as in its a whole new level for him. He has diluted everything. To me, and now, I see this as purely a Republican Govt, and not a Trump Govt. However, when he meets leaders, talking real issues, that will be a waste of time, and I am sure he will come off to them as "what is he doing here???"

Guys guys tirade time on hold. At the moment his plans are to find the most powerful positions for his kids. That should give him some leverage and control over the globe. Putin and Kim Jong Un are on his dinner invite list too don't forget.

While I agree that some parallels can be drawn with early-mid 1930s Hitler, it most certainly doesn't automatically follow that Trump will proceed down a similar path going forward. In fact I think it is incredibly unlikely.

The ideology and times and circumstances are different, but his methodology is identical.

Most of the world were in denial about Hitler's ambitions.

The budget for the US military machine is more than China, Russia, UK, and Germany combined.

By 1932 Hitler's Nazi party had the majority of the German Reichstag. Hindenburg made a deal with the Devil by nominating Hitler Chancellor. When he took power he asked his followers to stop activities against Jews so that everyone against him would think "oh that was just election rethoric".

The German Army did not like Hitler and everyone thought the good old Prussian club would be there to curb any excess but he slowly and surely started replacing the old Prussian generals and colonels with his own friends from the SA.

Basically once elected Hitler played ball until he managed to get full control of the German Reichstag and then the government system was changed to a single party totalitarian platform.

So far from what I've seen this person is doing exactly the same. Big words during campaign, then turn around and change the tone but starts replacing key positions (which all Presidents will do) with people that clearly have no abilities (family) or are too deep in the white supremacist game.

I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich twice. Once as a kid, in Portuguese, then again as an adult in English. Is not a light book to read (three large volumes) but it changes how you view the politics of totalitarianism.

I think it has similarities, at least similar tones, which is why the world is aghast that the Americans think he is the better person to lead them.

But the parallels will end there, with Trump getting to keep all those thoughts to himself. I really can't see him deporting (or wiping out) 70% of his citizens. I don't thinik he wants to either. He just wants to start a dynasty to make him and his family the richest peoiple on earth and he needs those citizens he belittled to do the donkey work for him to get that rich.

They aren't. American middle class is feeling the pressure. Racial tension is enormous. The fear of external influences is tremendous. The rich are happy and ignore the poor.

IMO, Hitler was ruling Germany. Trump is the ruler, but in reality, and also heavily due to his lack of knowledge, the GOP are ruling. So we see a dilution and backtracks on his mindless rhetoric. Plus, these days, the US cannot be ruled in the traditional sense of the word, its about managing the affairs of the US, rather than being able to do anythoing he wants at any time. I agree, there are a lot of parallels, but its also different. However, that the Repubs have the House and Senate does allow that theoretical possibility to have a lot of power now.

I’m sure I have made my views on Trump clear. He may turn out to be all hot air and no action, held in check by his party. His motives may not go beyond greed and self-aggrandisement. He may content himself with the ego boost of his victory and the toys of office, then get bored and go off to do something else. All these things are possible.

But we do have the examples of history. There are chilling parallels with the rise of Hitler and fascism. Modern neo-fascists are beating the drums again in Europe. It happened before. It is not impossible that it could happen again. It would be very foolish to pretend it can’t.

At the moment Trump seems to be in the process of replacing people. Not just opponents, but people in his own camp who may not quite be on the same page as much as he would like. Who is to say this process will stop with his inner circle choices? Many military officers support him. Many others do not. What will happen to those over time? Who is to say that those who currently control the GOP will remain the same? Death by a thousand cuts is the same as death by any other means. Just because he does not have absolute control today does not mean he could not have it tomorrow. Or he may surround himself with people who end up posing a greater threat than he does. These possibilities should not be ruled out.

On the basis of his words and behaviour and personality characteristics, I think it is prudent to be concerned and to remain alert. The question is if this world would be capable of doing anything even if the worst did come to pass. What I have seen until now does not exactly fill me with confidence.

Did good and decent Romans recognise when their way of life died? It didn’t happen at a particular moment, and it wasn’t the result of a single battle. It was a gradual process that occurred over time, the cumulative effect of many failures of society. We could well be witnessing the end of the democratic era, and just not realise it yet. Or maybe not. Let us fear the worst and hope for the best.

I'm reading in this thread and elsewhere that "Trump will be kept on a leash" by forces within the GOP, advisers etc.

I hope they're right, but have they stopped to think and looked at Trump's rap sheet? He's a 72 YO man - at an age where it's perhaps a bit unusual for people to have flexible views. He's also very much a fighter, takes no prisoners, wants to get his own way, and never gives up. Not having truth on his side hasn't slowed him down. Those character attributes, for better or for worse, are what he is - they define him - and he's very proud of that. You can forget "blessed are the meek". He's surrounding himself with similar "strongmen".

What happens next? We'll see - but there is no doubt he is much more dangerous to the world now than he was before he won the election.

tdgeek: In fact, my opinions are summarised like this. His bark is worse than his bite, and in any case he is on a GOP leash.

The president has the power to replace any office holder in the administration, and is also the military head. The president does not like the opinion of a general, the president replaces the general. Trump has a long list of endorsements to choose loyalists from, or at least someone who will do his bidding on any given day.

Replace the president? Fire the president? There is no such thing as a motion of no confidence in the American system.

Once the president is elected that's it. If the president commits a crime, ok, but you still need a 2/3 majority to convict.

I don't understand this thinking that Trump is on a Republican party leash. Feel free to explain it.

I’m sure I have made my views on Trump clear. He may turn out to be all hot air and no action, held in check by his party. His motives may not go beyond greed and self-aggrandisement. He may content himself with the ego boost of his victory and the toys of office, then get bored and go off to do something else. All these things are possible.

But we do have the examples of history. There are chilling parallels with the rise of Hitler and fascism. Modern neo-fascists are beating the drums again in Europe. It happened before. It is not impossible that it could happen again. It would be very foolish to pretend it can’t.

At the moment Trump seems to be in the process of replacing people. Not just opponents, but people in his own camp who may not quite be on the same page as much as he would like. Who is to say this process will stop with his inner circle choices? Many military officers support him. Many others do not. What will happen to those over time? Who is to say that those who currently control the GOP will remain the same? Death by a thousand cuts is the same as death by any other means. Just because he does not have absolute control today does not mean he could not have it tomorrow. Or he may surround himself with people who end up posing a greater threat than he does. These possibilities should not be ruled out.

On the basis of his words and behaviour and personality characteristics, I think it is prudent to be concerned and to remain alert. The question is if this world would be capable of doing anything even if the worst did come to pass. What I have seen until now does not exactly fill me with confidence.

Did good and decent Romans recognise when their way of life died? It didn’t happen at a particular moment, and it wasn’t the result of a single battle. It was a gradual process that occurred over time, the cumulative effect of many failures of society. We could well be witnessing the end of the democratic era, and just not realise it yet. Or maybe not. Let us fear the worst and hope for the best.

Possible. But IMHO he is the leader of the ruling party, not the ruler of the leading party

Time will tell. But all indications so far is that is election rhetoric is and has been wound down, as are his promises

"It was David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, who crystallised the situation into a chilling shard, following the US presidential election result. Speaking on CNN, he said: “When I listen to Conrad Black describe Donald Trump, I think I’m hallucinating. When I hear him described as not sexist, not racist, not playing on white fears, not arousing hate, when he’s described in a kind of normalised way, as someone in absolute possession of policy knowledge, as someone who’s somehow in the acceptable range of rhetoric, I think I’m hallucinating. And I fear for our country, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to do so. I accept the results of our election, of course I do. At the same time, I think Vladimir Putin played a distinct role in this election, and that’s outrageous. And we’ve normalised it already. You would think that Mitt Romney had won.”"